Case Summary (A.M. No. 99-5-18-SC)
Petitioner’s Request
The initial request, dated February 15, 1999, was submitted by the Clerk of Court and other court officials, reiterating a prior petition from January 15, 1996. The request aimed to upgrade ranks and salaries in accordance with previous resolutions from the Supreme Court, reflecting a need for better compensation aligned with similar positions in the judiciary.
Recommended Upgrades and Positions Involved
The proposal included specific requests to elevate the salary grades of key positions, including:
- Division Chief from Grade 24 to Grade 25
- Assistant Chief from Grade 22 to Grade 23
- Court Attorney V from Grade 26 to Grade 27
- Court Attorney IV from Grade 25 to Grade 26
The divisions impacted by the requested upgrades include the Judicial Records Division, Accounting Division, and others.
Administrative Review and Recommendations
Court Administrator Benipayo reviewed the matter and expressed favorable consideration for the upgrades, noting modest financial requirements and available funds. The Court En Banc subsequently tasked Atty. Adelaida Cabe-Baumann to provide further comments and recommendations regarding the applications.
Atty. Baumann's Findings
After evaluation, Atty. Baumann recommended granting certain upgrades, specifically:
- Upgrading Division Clerks of Court from SG 27 to CA Division Clerk of Court with SG 28 and privileges equivalent to a Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) Judge.
- Various Chief of Division positions elevated from SG 24 to Chief Judicial Staff Officer with SG 25.
- Assistant Chief of Division roles elevated from SG 22 to Supervising Judicial Staff Officer with SG 23.
However, she recommended the denial of upgrades for the CA Clerk of Court, CA Assistant Clerk of Court, and Court Reporter, as well as for the CA Court Attorneys.
Denial of Certain Requests
The Court denied several requests based on concerns about maintaining salary parity and preserving the hierarchical order of legal positions within the judiciary. Upgrading the CA Clerk and Assistant Clerk would align their salaries excessively with those of higher judicial roles, such as Associate Justices. Additionally, granting Court Attorneys higher ranks would disrupt existing positional hierarchies, particularly between the Court Attorneys and Court Reporters.
Court's Final Decision
The Court resolved to grant the upgrading and classification for certain positions, specifically the reclassification of Division Clerks of Court, Chief Judicial Staff Officers, and Supervising Judicial Staff Officers. However, it denied the requests concerning the CA Clerk o
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.M. No. 99-5-18-SC)
Case Background
- The administrative matter arises from a letter-request dated February 15, 1999, jointly signed by the Clerk of Court, Assistant Clerk of Court, Division Clerks of Court, and the Court Reporter of the Court of Appeals (CA).
- The request reiterates a previous appeal made by former Presiding Justice Jorge S. Imperial on January 15, 1996, for the upgrading of ranks, salaries, and privileges of CA officials.
- This request aligns with the Supreme Court's Resolution dated June 20, 1995, which provided new ranks, salaries, and privileges to specific positions in the Court.
Details of the Request
- The letter requests the upgrading of various positions effective January 1, 1998, including:
- Division Chief: From Grade 24 to Grade 25
- Assistant Chief: From Grade 22 to Grade 23
- Court Attorney V: From Grade 26 to Grade 27
- Court Attorney IV: From Grade 25 to Grade 26
- The positions involved include those in several divisions: Judicial Records, Accounting, Fiscal Management & Budget, Cash, Management & Audit, Human Resource Management, Supply & Property Management, Information & Statistical Data, Medical & Dental Services, Library, and General Services Divisions.
Court Administrator's Recommendation
- Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo recommended granting the request, noting that the required funding was modest and available.
- The Court En Banc decided on June 8, 1999, to refer the matter to Atty. Adelaida